Bakersfield City Council
September 10, 2025

agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

Fully Protected Species: CDFW has jurisdiction over fully protected species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and fish, pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:
 Take is for necessary scientific research,
 Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or threatened species, live capture, and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock, or  They are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

Additionally, specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (see Fish & G. Code §2081.15). Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the Project planning process if an ITP may be pursued for the Project.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

Unlisted Species: Species of plants and animals need not be officially listed as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened (E, R, or T) on any State or Federal list to be considered E, R, or T under CEQA. If a species can be shown to meet the criteria for E, R, or T under CEQA Guidelines section 15380, CDFW recommends it should be fully considered in the environmental analysis for the Project.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: LGI Homes – California, LLC
Objective: The Project proposes to subdivide 83.97 acres into 393 single-family residential lots. The Project also includes the subdivision of five landscape and five private landscape areas, and one retention basin, one private retention basin, and one private park.

Location: The Project site is located within the City of Bakersfield on the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive in northeast Bakersfield. Adjacent properties to the north, west, and east are vacant land. To the south of the Project site is an elementary school and existing single-family residential development. The specific parcel number affected by this Project is Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 437-010- 043.

Timeframe: Unspecified.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Bakersfield in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Project.

The MND and aerial imagery of the parcel show that the Project site is comprised of disturbed annual grassland. Historic imagery demonstrates that initial grading for residential development occurred around the year 2006 and the land has since remained fallow and occupied by non-native grasses. The surrounding habitats to the west, north, and east are largely composed of vacant, undisturbed annual grasslands.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records show the Project is within the geographic range of several special-status animal species, and several mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant. CDFW has concerns about the ability of some the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant and avoid unauthorized take for several special-status animal species, including the State endangered and fully protected and federally endangered bluntnosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila); the State threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica); the State candidate western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) and Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii); and the State species of special concern American badger (Taxidea taxus).

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Comment 1: Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) is a State endangered and fully protected and federally endangered species. The Project site is within the known geographic range of BNLL, and the species is known to occur less than 3 miles away from the Project site (CNDDB 2024).

Suitable BNLL habitat includes all areas of grassland and shrub habitat that contain required habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows and open areas for basking.

BNLL are also known to utilize open space patches between suitable habitat features including disturbed sites, and unpaved access roadways. Based on aerial imagery and the information provided in the MND, the Project site may contain suitable habitat for BNLL.

CDFW concurs with the use of the methodologies outlined in mitigation measures BIO8, through BIO-10 to minimize and avoid impacts to BNLL. BIO-8 states that a qualified biologist(s) will conduct protocol surveys in accordance with the “Approved Survey Methodology for the Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard” (CDFW 2019) to detect any BNLL that may occur on the Project site. In addition to these measures, CDFW also recommends that any BNLL detection, known burrows, or egg clutch sites have a minimum 395-acre buffer. This buffer is based on unpublished data from Dr. David Germano documenting that “male BNLL have home ranges up to 52 acres and that female BNLL have home ranges exceeding 98 acres, the known maximum home range sizes observed for the species, the unknown specific footprint of the individual BNLL’s home range relative to where the lizard was observed on the surface, and the unknown location of the lizard underground when construction commences.” CDFW would like to additionally refer to a 2018 study from Tennant, Germano, and others titled “Investigating blunt-nosed leopard lizard population size, demographics, space use, and future population trends on Department Ecological Reserves”. Among other findings, this study recorded female BNLL in competitive areas dispersing over a kilometer before returning back to their home range. One surveyed female was identified 1,344 meters from her original detection point (Tennant 2018). CDFW also recommends that an appropriate number of qualified biologists be present during all ground-disturbing Project activities to monitor for BNLL, not just the initial surface disturbance activities, and that any individual that may enter the Project activity area be allowed to leave unobstructed of its own accord.

Comment 2: San Joaquin Kit Fox
The MND notes that during the biological resource evaluation, evidence of San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) was observed on the proposed Project site. This detection is further supported by multiple historical and recent observations on CNDDB near the Project site (CNDDB 2024). Mitigation measures BIO-7 through BIO-9 are provided to mitigate for impacts to SJKF. CDFW concurs with the mitigation measures outlined in the MND; Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

however, if take cannot be avoided, acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to any ground disturbing activities, pursuant Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), would be required to comply with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

Comment 3: Western Burrowing Owl
The California Fish and Game Commission named western burrowing owl (BUOW) as a candidate for potential listing as a protected species under CESA on October 10, 2024.

This action advanced the species to candidacy under CESA and as such BUOW now receives the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2074.2 & 2085). It is illegal to import, export, take (hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt engage in any of these activities), possess, purchase, or sell BUOW or any part or product thereof (Fish & G. Code, §§§ 86, 2080, 2085).

The Project site is within the known geographic range of BUOW and there are multiple historic and recent occurrences located within five miles of the Project site (CDFW 2024). BUOW inhabit open grasslands and desert scrublands containing small mammal burrows, a requisite habitat feature used by BUOW for nesting and cover. Based on aerial imagery and the information provided in the MND, the Project site and adjacent lands contain suitable habitat for BUOW nesting and foraging.

Mitigation measure BIO-11 is provided to mitigate for potential impacts to BUOW.

However, CDFW does not concur that BIO-11 is sufficient to mitigate for potential impacts to BUOW and recommends the MND include the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: BUOW Surveys Prior to Construction CDFW recommends that surveys following the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) be conducted the survey season immediately prior to construction.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: BUOW Avoidance Buffer Should a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive) be detected, either during preconstruction surveys or construction activities, CDFW recommends that no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), be implemented prior to and during any grounddisturbing activities. CDFW also recommends that these buffers be implemented for both wintering and breeding BUOW.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: BUOW Take Authorization If a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive) is detected, and the nodisturbance buffers outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Mitigation are not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.

Comment 4: Crotch’s Bumble Bee
The Project site is within the known geographic range of Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) and there are at least two historical observations within ten (10) miles of the Project site (CNDDB 2024). CBB are known to inhabit areas of grasslands and scrub that contain requisite habitat elements for nesting, such as small mammal burrows and bunch/thatched grasses, and these habitat elements appear to be present within the vacant lands in the vicinity of the Project site. Mitigation measure BIO-8 is provided to mitigate for potential impacts to CBB. However, CDFW does not concur that BIO-8 is sufficient to mitigate for potential impacts to CBB and recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 4: CBB Habitat Assessment CDFW recommends a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment to determine if the Project site and the immediate surrounding vicinity contain habitat suitable to support CBB. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs would need to be documented as part of the assessment.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: CBB Surveys
If potentially suitable habitat is identified, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for CBB, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).

Recommended Mitigation Measure 6: CBB Avoidance
If CBB is detected, then CDFW recommends that all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take. Any Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

detection of CBB prior to or during Project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 7: CBB Take Authorization If take cannot be avoided, CDFW recommends acquiring an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b), prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities.

Comment 5: American Badger
The Project site is within the known geographic range of American badger (AMBA) and suitable habitat is present (CDFW 2024) within the Project site and its vicinity. AMBA occupy sparsely vegetated land cover with dry, friable soils to excavate dens, which they use for cover, and that support fossorial rodent prey populations (i.e., ground squirrels, pocket gophers, etc.) (Zeiner et. al 1990). Mitigation Measure BIO-11 is provided to mitigate for potential impacts to AMBA. CDFW concurs with BIO-11 and also recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 8: Surveys
CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for AMBA, as well as their requisite habitat features, to evaluate potential impacts resulting from ground disturbance.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 9: Avoidance
Avoidance whenever possible is encouraged via delineation and a 50-foot no disturbance buffer around burrows. CDFW also advises that any individuals observed be allowed to leave the Project site of their own volition.

Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions
Federally Listed Species: CDFW recommends consulting with USFWS regarding potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to BNLL and SJKF.

Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any Project activities.

Nesting birds: CDFW encourages that Project ground-disturbing activities occur during the bird non-nesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1st through September 15th), the Project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

not result in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Code sections as referenced above.

CDFW further recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the Project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected, either directly or indirectly, by the Project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once Project activities begin, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of nonlisted bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of nonlisted raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the Project site would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

CNDDB: Please note that the CNDDB is populated by records through voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present at or near the Project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database, which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to the CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to the CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, could have an impact on biological resources, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Bakersfield in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 1) is included below to assist the City of Bakersfield with incorporating the recommended mitigation measures provided above.

More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols). If you have any questions regarding this letter or further coordination, please contact Marile Colindres, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 974-3452, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: State Clearinghouse
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 For
Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

REFERENCES
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Pages 171-177 in Lincer, J. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1993. The burrowing owl, its biology and management. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation.

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Approved survey methodology for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey considerations for California endangered species act candidate bumble bee species. Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. Biogeographic information and observation system (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed 12 December 2024.

Tennant, E., D. Germano, J. Stewart, H. Butterfield, and M. Westphal. 2018.

Investigating blunt-nosed leopard lizard population size, demographics, space use, and future population trends on Department Ecological Reserves. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

Zeiner, D., W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife.

Volumes I-III in California Department of Fish and Game, editor. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Attachment 1

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PROJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 (Project) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
SCH No.: 2024110806

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE STATUS/DATE/INITIALS
Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation
Western Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1:

BUOW Surveys Prior to Construction
Recommended Mitigation Measure 3:

BUOW Take Authorization
Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 4:

CBB Habitat Assessment
Recommended Mitigation Measure 5:

CBB Surveys
State Species of Special Concern
Recommended Mitigation Measure 8:

Surveys
During Construction
Western Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2:

BUOW Avoidance Buffer
Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 6:

CBB Avoidance
Recommended Mitigation Measure 7:

CBB Take Authorization
American Badger
Recommended Mitigation Measure 9:

Avoidance
Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 4900 California Ave, Ste 420A, Bakersfield, CA 93309 / P 661.282.2200 / F 661.427.0703 / trinityconsultants.com

HEADQUARTERS
12700 Park Central Dr, Ste 600, Dallas, TX 75251 / P +1 800.229.6655 / P +1 972.661.8100 January 29, 2025
City of Bakersfield Development Services Department
Planning Division
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210
RE: Response to Comments on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Division:

Trinity Consultants (Trinity) is pleased to provide this response to specific comments received from The Sierra Club on the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) for the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Project. These responses pertain to specific comments therein that referred to the AQIA prepared by Trinity on behalf of the subject project. The comments are addressed in the order in which they were made.

AIR QUALITY
Sensitive Receptor Analysis
Comment
The MND is defective in not having thoroughly addressed this project’s air pollution impact on these sensitive receptors.

Response
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) states that “ambient air quality standards (AAQS) define clean air and are established to protect the health of the most sensitive groups in our communities.” California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) were first established in 1962, followed by the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 1971. The development of CAAQS relies on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which reviews health literature to develop recommendations for the standards. Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), a Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA), and a Policy Assessment (PA) to determine the NAAQS.

This assessment followed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), dated March 19, 2015, specifically the screening thresholds outlined in Section 8.4.4. According to this guidance, if a project's construction emissions, permitted operational emissions (not applicable to this project), or non-permitted operational emissions exceed 100 pounds per day, an ambient air quality analysis is required.

For this project, maximum estimated construction emissions and non-permitted operational emissions are each below 100 pounds per day. Based on the discussion above, because the proposed Project’s emissions are all below SJVAPCD’s screening thresholds, the proposed Project’s potential air quality emissions would not have the potential to generate adverse health impacts to nearby receptors.

Planning Division - Page 2
January 29, 2025
Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Comment
Table 4-4 of the MND is entitled “Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions”. Are there emissions which are actually “permitted” and not accounted for in Table 4-4? Response
The SJVAPCD categorizes criteria pollutant emissions into three groups: construction emissions, operational non-permitted equipment and activities, and operational permitted equipment and activities (GAMAQI Section 8.3). Long-term emissions resulting from operational mobile, area, and energy sources for a housing development fall under non-permitted operational emissions. Therefore, Table 4-4 was titled “Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions” to reflect this categorization. No permitted equipment or activities (i.e., stationary source equipment) have been proposed by the Applicant.

Comment
The earlier MND for the smaller tract 6191 housing project on the same site listed operational emissions for the smaller project at 6.09 tons/year for ROG, 5.32 tons/year for NOx and 10.29 tons/year for PM, much larger values than those in the current Table 4-4. The City must account for the comparatively smaller values in Table 4-4.

Response
Trinity has not reviewed the MND for Tract 6191; however, based on the available information on CEQAnet the project was received 7/1/2003 (State Clearing House Number 2003071006). In early 2003, the emissions estimator available was the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) 2002 Version 8.7. Since then, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was introduced in 2011, with the most recent 2022 version being utilized for this project.

Emission modeling tools have significantly advanced over the years, improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness of emissions estimates. URBEMIS 2002 relied on older emissions factors and methodologies, while CalEEMod incorporates updated emissions factors, land use data, and calculation methodologies aligned with current regulatory standards. These improvements can result in notable differences in estimated emissions between older and newer models. The values in Table 4-4 reflect the best available data and methods provided by CalEEMod 2022, providing the most updated anticipated project emissions.

Cumulative Impact – Criteria Pollutants
Comment
The MND for this project is defective in that it has not computed or addressed the cumulative emissions from this and other planned projects, cumulative emissions which almost certainly would exceed air quality standards and should be considered significant.

Response
CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 permits the incorporation by reference of portions or all of other documents that provide information relevant to the Proposed Project and the environmental analysis. Documents incorporated by reference must be available for public review at an office of the Lead Agency or other public Planning Division - Page 3
January 29, 2025
building. The documents identified below are incorporated by reference, and where relevant, the information therein has been summarized in this Response to Comments.

The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (Bakersfield 2002), provides relevant cumulative analysis in the proposed Project area, is a comprehensive document, and are hereby incorporated by references pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report can be reviewed at the City of Bakersfield’s Planning Division office:
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210
Monday through Friday
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The Proposed Project area is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and a nonattainment area for PM10 and PM2.5.

To provide an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts, a list approach is used, in accordance with Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The list approach may utilize either (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

The potential cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project and other projects are discussed below. A cumulative project list was incorporated by reference above from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Bakersfield, 2002). Because the Basin is currently designated as “nonattainment” for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, these projects could contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance, which would be a cumulative impact.

With regard to determining the significance of the contribution from the Proposed Project, the City of Bakersfield recommends that any given project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed using the same significance criteria as for project-specific impacts. Therefore, individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SJVAPCD’s recommended daily or annual thresholds for project-specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant adverse air quality impact. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s cumulative contribution is considered less-than-significant.

GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
Cumulative Impact - GHG Emissions
Comment 1
The City must present an analysis of the project’s cumulative impact.

Comment 2
The MND is deficient in not having considered the cumulative impact of a list of area projects on climate change.

Planning Division - Page 4
January 29, 2025
Response (Comments 1 & 2)
CEQA does not require “perfection” but instead “adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure” (Section 15003 (i)); therefore, the analysis of the proposed Project’s anticipated GHG emissions and climate change impacts is based on methodologies and information available at the time that the technical report was prepared. Estimation of anticipated GHG emissions that would occur in the future does not account for changes in technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that may be worse than that which may actually occur. Many uncertainties exist regarding the precise relationship between specific levels of GHG emissions and the ultimate impact on global climate; significant uncertainties also exist regarding the GHG reduction potential of mitigation strategies. Thus, while the information below is being presented to assist the public and the City’s decision makers in understanding the proposed Project’s potential contribution to global climate change impacts, the information available to the City is not sufficiently detailed to allow a direct comparison between particular characteristics of the proposed Project and particular climate change impacts, nor between any particular proposed mitigation measure and any reduction in climate change impacts.

While it is not possible to determine whether the proposed Project individually would have a significant impact on global warming or climate change, the proposed Project would potentially contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California as well as related health effects. The proposed Project emissions would only be a very small fraction of the statewide GHG emissions. However, without the necessary science and analytical tools, it is not possible to assess, with certainty, whether the proposed Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130. CEQA, however, does note that the more severe environmental problems, the lower the thresholds for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant. Given the position of the legislature in AB 32, which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the proposed Project’s GHG contribution may be determined to be cumulatively considerable. This determination is speculative, given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the proposed Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

Comment
On page 30, the MND states, “The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains a variety of strategies to reduce the State’s emissions. As shown in Table 4-7, the project is consistent with strategies that are applicable to the project.” This unfounded conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. Table 4-7 only contains values for annual project GHG emissions, no arguments for consistency with any strategies whatsoever. The City must clearly describe its reasoning and identify substantial evidence that supports this conclusion.

Response
The purpose of Table 4-7 is to disclose the project’s quantified annual GHG emissions, which were calculated using industry-standard tools such as CalEEMod. These emissions estimates form the foundation for evaluating the project’s consistency with California’s regulatory programs and sectoral GHG reduction strategies under the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Specifically, the project’s GHG emissions are primarily attributed to electricity consumption and fuel combustion, both of which are regulated by statewide programs designed to achieve the state’s GHG reduction targets. These programs include:
► Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): Ensures an increasing share of electricity is generated from renewable sources, directly addressing emissions from electricity use. ► Cap-and-Trade Program: Regulates fuel suppliers and other sectors to cap and reduce overall GHG emissions.

Planning Division - Page 5
January 29, 2025
► Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS): Reduces the carbon intensity of transportation fuels.

The project’s compliance with these upstream regulatory programs ensures that its GHG emissions are accounted for in the state’s GHG reduction strategy. For example, electricity for the project will be sourced from a utility that is subject to the RPS, which mandates a transition to renewable energy sources. Similarly, the carbon intensity of fuels consumed during project operations will be regulated under the Cap-and-Trade Program and LCFS. This approach aligns with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, which allows GHG emissions to be evaluated in the context of compliance with statewide regulatory programs.

Comment
SB 32 requires that statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.

The MND is deficient in not having addressed this requirement.

Response
The 2022 AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality) includes the GHG reduction goals of SB 32, which requires reducing emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

The Scoping Plan provides a comprehensive framework for achieving both AB 32 and SB 32 targets through sector-specific strategies. By aligning with the Scoping Plan’s measures, the project supports the state's long-term GHG reduction goals outlined in SB 32.

If you have any questions or comments about the information presented in this letter, please do not hesitate to call 661.282.2200.

Sincerely,

TRINITY CONSULTANTS
cc: San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.

LGI Homes – California, LLC
McCORMICK
B I O L O G I C A L, I N C.

Biological Sciences – Inventory, Permitting, and Planning P.O. Box 80983, Bakersfield, California 933803600 Pegasus Drive, Suite 12, Bakersfield, California 93308 Office: (661) 589-4065E-mail: [email protected]
February 24, 2025
Mr. Hunter Troxel
Project Manager - Staff Civil Engineer
San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.
200 New Stine Road, Suite 175
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Subject: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Response to Comments Regarding Biological Resources
Mr. Troxel,
Please review the comment responses provided herein by McCormick Biological, Inc. (MBI) in reference to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Formally Tract 6191), a parcel measuring 83.96 acres (APNs: 437-010-41), located on the southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive, Bakersfield, California. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared according to the California Environmental Quality Act with the City of Bakersfield as the Lead Agency. Two comment letters were received addressing the Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures proposed by MBI in a Biological Resource Evaluation dated August 2024 (BRE) and provided to LGI Homes – California, LLC: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), dated December 23, 2024 (Comment Letter 1) and Sierra Club Kern Kaweah Chapter (Sierra Club), undated (Comment Letter 2). We have provided comment responses to these two letters in the following paragraphs.

Comment Letter 1 (CDFW)
Response to Comment 1: Measure BIO-10 requires that if a blunt-nosed leopard lizard is found during protocol surveys, an avoidance plan must be submitted to CDFW that requires take avoidance in compliance with this species’ fully protected status. In effect, the 300-foot buffer could not be implemented if the bluntnosed leopard lizard avoidance plan allows for encroachment on the occupied area that could result in “take”.

Given that the recommended avoidance buffers would effectively have the same result, we recommend revising Table 4.1. However, the Project only measures approximately 84 acres, and the proponent would not have authority to exercise control beyond the Project boundaries. Therefore, we recommend revising the table as shown at the end of these response.

Response to Comment 2: Implementation of BIO-8 and BIO-9 will result in application for appropriate incidental take authorization should SJKF be found to occupy the Project.

Response to Comment 3: We acknowledge that the upgraded status of burrowing owl warrants Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

inclusion in BIO-8, which details species-specific surveys to be implemented prior to surface disturbance or site alteration. BIO-8 addresses notification and permitting should recommended buffers not be feasible. The following bullet should be added regarding burrowing owl:

Burrowing owl (agency protocol): In the survey season prior to commencement of construction, surveys described in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) (Staff Report) should be implemented.

Should a burrowing owl or known burrowing owl den (active or inactive) be detected, either during preconstruction surveys or construction activities, no-disturbance buffers outlined in the Staff Report and included in Table 4.1 shall be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities. The table has been updated to include reference to active and inactive burrows. The portion of BIO-11 that refers to burrowing owl can be deleted.

Response to Comment 4: Implementation of BIO-8 captures the elements of CDFW’s Measures 4, 5, and 6 by incorporating the methods in CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (June 6, 2023). All survey elements of the CDFW methodology should be implemented by following the publicly available survey methods referenced in BIO-8.

Federally Listed Species: the differences between federal and state take definitions were included in the BRE In addition, coordination with USFWS to determine whether take authorization under the Federal Endangered Species Act is required by that agency is included in BIO-8 and BIO-9.

Nesting Birds: The dates of nesting bird season in BIO-4 should be adjusted to reflect the CDFW recommendation (February 1 through September 15). Additionally, Measure BIO-4 should be adjusted to reflect conducting a survey 10-days prior to initial project activities (vegetation clearance, grading, heavy equipment mobilization, etc.) and further define the actions to be taken if active nests are found.

Recommended Revision to BIO-4: Nesting Bird Season. If initial ground disturbance occurs during nesting season (February 1 to September 15) a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey to identify any active nests present within the proposed work area. If active nests are found, initial ground disturbance shall be postponed or halted within no disturbance buffers, as shown in Table 4.1. If the no disturbance buffers in Table 4.1 are not feasible, nests will be monitored by a qualified avian biologist who will establish a behavior baseline prior to activities. The qualified avian biologist will establish an avoidance buffer and continuously monitor during project activities, watching for behavioral changes. If any indication of nesting disturbance is observed, the avoidance buffer will be increased until the avian biologist determines that nesting behavior has returned to baseline. Nest monitoring will continue until juveniles have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. Monitoring will be documented on standardized field forms and provided to the City of Bakersfield for verification of compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and applicable section of Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5 and 3513). CDFW may be contacted for guidance regarding alternative avoidance strategies.

Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Table 4.1. Protected Biological Resources – Recommended Avoidance Buffers Special-status Resource Avoidance Buffer*
Crotch’s bumble bee nest 50 feet or implement CDFW
recommended buffer
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard observation Work may not proceed until BIO-9 and BIO-10 have been completed
Swainson’s hawk active nest (March 15-September 15)
Swainson’s hawk documented nest tree (outside of nesting season)
¼-mile
50 feet
San Joaquin kit fox potential den or suitable pipe
San Joaquin kit fox known den
San Joaquin kit fox atypical den
San Joaquin kit fox natal den
San Joaquin kit fox natal den (unoccupied/outside of natal season) 50 feet
100 feet
50 feet
500 feet
100 feet
Burrowing owl active or inactive burrow (high impact level) April 1-August 15: 1,640 feet August 16-October 15: 1,640 feet
October 16-March 31: 1,640 feet
Non-listed nesting birds (non-raptors) 250 feet
Non-listed raptors 500 feet
Listed/protected raptors ½-mile
American badger occupied natal den
American badger occupied den
200 feet
50 feet
*Unless incidental take authority authorizes encroachment or appropriate agency concurrence for a reduced buffer is received.

Comment Letter 2 (Sierra Club)
See Attachment 1 for the portion of the Sierra Club comment letter (pages 4 and 5) showing biological resources comments annotated that are addressed here.

Response to Comment 1: Overall, this is a CEQA procedural question that should be addressed by the Lead Agency. Some context information is provided here regarding the surveys and impact analysis provided by MBI.

The reconnaissance surveys were conducted to provide context and explanation for the potential to occur and subsequent impact analysis for the potentially occurring species. Actionable mitigation measures in regard to those special-status resources are provided in the BRE and MND which demonstrate how the identified impacts will be reduced to a level of “less than significant” when implemented. Results of surveys required within the mitigation measures will result in implementation of procedures in the event of positive detections as described in the MND. This method allows for consideration of presence of multiple species that may not be observable via one or even series of surveys and provides a plan if addressed biological resources are detected prior to commencement of the Project or during construction activities. The measures account for changes in species composition between surveys conducted to support the MND and project commencement, not just those observed on the site at a given point in time.

Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Response to Comment 2: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding the question of whether consultation must occur before Project approval.

Response to Comment 3: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding whether the impacts identified in the BRE and MND warrant preparation of a full EIR.

Response to Comment 4: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding landscaping policies applied to the Project and whether an EIR is required. No native vegetation communities or potential for rare plant occurrence were found during the surveys and the analysis found that no potential impacts were identified.

The BRE did not identify removal of any native vegetation that would justify mitigation via landscaping with native plants.

Response to Comment 5: The findings of the BRE were that the Project is unlikely to support Swainson’s hawk nesting and provides marginal foraging habitat, resulting in no significant impacts to this species with the implementation of the presented mitigation measures. Absent presentation of additional evidence or data demonstrating that the Project would have potentially significant impacts on this species, no further mitigation would be necessary.

Response to Comment 6: DNA testing of scat is not warranted to determine presence of this species.

The most applicable methods for determining San Joaquin kit fox use of habitat in the region are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011), which were implemented during the surveys conducted to support the BRE. These are the standard accepted methods for identifying San Joaquin kit fox presence.

Based on observations during the surveys, the BRE assumed that San Joaquin kit fox forage on the Project and may use potential dens, although no evidence of use of these dens was documented at the time of the survey. The conclusion of the BRE was that San Joaquin kit fox were present and appropriate mitigation measures were proposed to reduce potential impacts to this species to less than significant.

Response to Comment 7: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding the planning issues and design standards that would result in implementation of this mitigation measure. It should be noted that the design provided in the MND includes a stormwater retention basin and the Mojave Pipeline easement through the northern portion of the parcel, which will be retained as a walking path landscaped with grass and plants.

Both of these feature types are identified in Cypher (2012) as supporting San Joaquin kit fox in the urban setting.

Response to Comment 8: Mitigation measures BIO-8 and BIO-9 require that the applicant seek incidental take authority from the appropriate agency prior to commencement of activities should any federal or state listed species be present on the Project. Given the marginal conditions and previously disturbed nature of the Project when the BRE was prepared and the findings at that time, habitat compensation was not deemed a necessary component of mitigation unless listed species are subsequently found to be occupying the Project. Mitigation measures BIO-8 and BIO-9 address that conclusion.

Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Should you have any questions regarding these responses, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or by cellular phone at 661.343.1078.

Respectfully,
Randi McCormick
Principal Biologist
References cited:

Cypher, B. L., and C.L. Van Horn Job. (2012). Management and conservation of San Joaquin kit foxes in urban environments. In ‘Proceedings of the vertebrate pest conference’. pp. 347–352. (University of California: Davis, CA, USA).

USFWS. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Author. 9 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-ProtocolsGuidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf Attachment 1
Sierra Club comment letter (Pages 4 and 5)

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\PC memo - correspondence_VTTM 7471 final.docx Page | 1

MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 1, 2025
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 6.a. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Staff received the attached letter from the Sierra Club. Sierra Club disagrees with the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for this project. They ask for revision of the MND to address issues raised in their letter, such as cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases and biological resources.

Staff recommends adopting the MND and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471.

Attachment: Sierra Club letter (April 30, 2025)
1 890 Monterey St
Suite H
SanLuis Obispo
California 93401
ph: 805-593-0926
fax: 805-593-0946
[email protected]
Law Offices of Babak Naficy
April 30, 2025
Via Email
Bakersfield Planning Commission,
[email protected]
Courtney Camps: [email protected]
Re: Vesting Ten t ative Tract Map 7471
Planning Commission May 1, 2025 Agenda
Item No. 6
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the Kern Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club. As explained in the Sierra Club’s December 30, 2024, letter to the Development Services Department, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this Vesting Tentative Map fails to adequately analyze the Project’s potential impacts on biological resources, particularly the impacts on the diverse group of protected species that have either been detected on the site or are expected to occur. The MND also fails to adequately assess the significance of the Project’s contribution to climate change, or to propose any mitigation to address those impacts.

1. Contrary to what is stated in the MND, the Project’s cumulative contribution to climate change is considerable and significant.

The MND claims “[t]he project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to greenhouse gas emissions (Trinity Consultants 2024).” These claims, however, are neither explained nor supported by substantial evidence.

Typically, under CEQA, the lead agency applies a threshold of significance to assess the significance of a project’s potential impacts. “A threshold is an ‘identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.’ [(CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd (a).)]” Upland Cmty. First v. City of Upland, (20240 105 Cal. App. 5th 1, 16.
2 Here, the agency baldly asserts that the Project’s potential climate impacts are not significant without relying on any threshold of significance or even an explanation of its methodology or any other basis for reaching this conclusion.

Moreover, the MND’s conclusion in this regard is at odds with the report of its own expert, Trinity Consultant, who in their January 29, 2025, response to Sierra Club’s comments, admitted that “[g]iven the position of the legislature in AB 32, which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the proposed Project’s GHG contribution may be determined to be cumulatively considerable.” Ironically, the MND cites Trinity for the proposition that the Project’s contribution to climate change is NOT considerable or significant.

The MND also claims that “the project is consistent with [AB 32] strategies that are applicable to the project.” The MND then cites the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and explains that these strategies
primarily rely on increasing the stringency of existing regulations with which the project would continue to comply, support through the project’s design, and implementation of the General Plan goals and policies (Trinity Consultants 2024). Accordingly, taking into account the proposed project’s emissions, project design features, and the progress being made by the State towards reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not obstruct their attainment. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects related to an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.” This analysis, however, is inadequate and does not amount to substantial evidence supporting a conclusion the Project would not result in a significant impact associated with its greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that the State has in the past and will continue to adopt more stringent regulations does not support the conclusion that the Project’s emissions are consistent with or promote the State’s GHG reduction strategies. That argument makes no sense, because by that logic, every project is consistent with State climate goals because all projects rely on the same more efficient fuels, are subject to the same 3 increasingly more stringent regulations, and benefit from the state-sponsored GHG reductions in all sectors.

Moreover, the MND claims that Project “design features” are consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions. The MND does not, however, identify or describe any such design features, leaving the public and the Planning Commissioners to guess what design features are intended to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions.

2. The MND improperly defers important protocol surveys and formulation mitigation measures.

The MND relies on a Biological Resource Evaluation based on a reconnaissance field study. The MND recognizes that the Project likely supports and/or is habitat for a number of protected species, including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL), the San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl, nesting birds, American badger, Crotch’s bumble bee and Swainson’s hawk. Project consultant, McCormik explained that the “reconnaissance surveys were conducted to provide context and explanation for the potential to occur and subsequent impact analysis for the potentially occurring species.” McCormik, February 24, 2025, at 3.

It appears that because the applicant was not required to conduct protocol level surveys, in most instances the formulation of mitigation measures was deferred. With respect to the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF), for example, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) explained that “if take cannot be avoided, acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to any ground disturbing activities, pursuant Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), would be required to comply with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).” The MND concluded that even if take cannot be avoided, the acquisition of and ITP would necessarily reduce the Project impacts on SKKF to a less than significant level. This conclusion, however, is not explained or substantiated. There is no explanation to support this claim.

CDFW also pointed out that appropriate burrowing owl surveys had not been conducted. In its response to comments, McCormik admits that due to the upgraded status of the burrowing owl, “species-specific surveys” should be conducted, but defers these to after project approval. Again, it is assumed without any explanation that a feasible and effective mitigation strategy would simply present itself. In its comments, CDFW pointed out that the recommended buffers may not be feasible, in which case “consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization …. Is necessary to comply with CESA.” This demonstrates that a discussion of potential mitigation strategies were 4 impermissibly deferred without any discussion of the feasibility and/or efficacy of potential mitigation measures, or any performance standards to ensure the mitigation measures will be effective in the long run.

Generally, “ ‘[i]t is improper to defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after project approval; instead, the determination of whether a project will have significant environmental impacts, and the formulation of measures to mitigate those impacts, must occur before the project is approved.’ [Citation.]” (Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 755; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) “[A]n exception to this general rule applies when the agency has committed itself to specific performance criteria for evaluating the efficacy of the measures to be implemented in the future, and the future mitigation measures are formulated and operational before the project activity that they regulate begins. [Citation.]
Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal. App. 5th 665, 686
Likewise, with respect to the Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB), a habitat assessment necessary to determine the likely presence of the CBB is deferred.

Focused surveys may be necessary if the requisite habitat features are present.

However, without this basic information, the public and the Planning Commissioners are not able to determine if the Project could potentially impact this protected species. Nor is there any discussion of whether mitigation of the impacts to the CBB is feasible.

For all of these reasons, the MND violates CEQA and must be revised as explained herein.
.

Sincerely,
Babak Naficy
Babak Naficy,
Counsel for the Kern Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club
RESOLUTION NO .. 22-25

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION

TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7471 (PHASED)

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MORNING DRIVE
AND PALADINO DRIVE.

WHEREAS, San Joaquin Engineering, Inc. representing LGI Homes - California, LLC, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department requesting a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) (the "Project"), and a modification request to allow Double Frontage Lots, Reverse Corner Lots, Non-Radial Lot Lines, Block length to exceed 1,000 feet, Maximum Landscape Wall Height to exceed 9 feet, Use of Storm drain Easements and 300' Centerline Radius, consisting of 363 lots, 5 landscape lots, 5 private landscape lots, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin and 1 private park on 83.97 acres for single family residential development, as shown on attached Exhibit "C", located at the southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive as shown on attached Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on October 10, 2024; and WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted that determined the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, May 1, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Department ( 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, environmental review, and special studies (if any), and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:
1 . All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a. local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.

2. The prov1s1ons of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the application is a project under CEQA and an initial study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared and duly noticed for public review between November 21, 2024 and December 23, 2024.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, staff prepared an initial study and indicated that because mitigation measures relating to biological resources, cultural resources and air quality analysis have been incorporated into the Project, the Project will have a less than significant impact on the physical environment.

4. Urban services are available for the proposed development. The Project is within an area to be served by all necessary utilities and waste disposal systems. Improvements proposed as part of the Project will deliver utilities to the individual lots or parcels to be created.

5. The application, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. {Subdivision Map Act Section 66473.5) The proposed density and intensity of development are consistent with the LR {Low Density Residential) land use classification on the property. Proposed road improvements are consistent with the Circulation Element. The overall design of the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of all elements of the General Plan.

6. Mineral right owners' signatures may be waived on the final map pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 A. l. The applicant has provided evidence with the Project application that it is appropriate to waive mineral right owners' signatures because in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A. 1., the party's right of surface entry has been by recorded document prior to recordation of any final map.

7. In accordance with BMC 16.28.170 H, Paladino Drive and Morning Drive function as major streets as shown on the Project, therefore the abutting double frontage lots are reasonable due to controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance, and setback, and are approved with construction of a 6-foot high masonry wall separating the residential lot and the major street.

8. The request for modification{s) is consistent with sound engineering practices or subdivision design features.

9. The conditions of approval are necessary for orderly development and to provide for the public health, welfare, and s0fety.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
l. The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby approved.

3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7 471, is hereby approved with conditions of approval and mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "A".

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on May l, 2025, on a motion by Commissioner Bittle and seconded by Commissioner Martin, by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

Bittle, Brandt Oliver, Cater, Kaur, Martin, Strickland
None
ABSENT: Neal
Exhibits (attached}:

Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B: Location Map
A7A~

DANIEL CATER, CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
Exhibit C: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased)
By CC S:\OS_Land Division\24-60000097 _ VTTM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive\01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7 471 _pc-Res.docx

EXHIBIT "A"
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 7471

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTE to Subdivider/Applicant: It is important that you review and comply with requirements and deadlines listed in the "FOR YOUR INFORMATION" packet that is provided separately. This packet contains existing ordinance requirements, policies, and departmental operating procedures as they may apply to this subdivision.

PUBLIC WORKS

1. In letters dated January 25, 2024 & March 19, 2024, the applicant requested deviations from the following ordinance and policy requirements:

1.1. SOM 5.2.6.7 - Request Exception for the maximum length of a local street along Beauty Ave/Enchanted Dr. Recommendation: APPROVE.

1.2. SOM 5.4.2.1 - Request Exception from the minimum Local Street centerline Radius along the following streets: Thorner St, Happy Ct and Elated Ct.

Recommendation: APPROVE.

2. Approval of this tentative map does not indicate approval of grading, drainage lines and appurtenant facilities shown, or any variations from ordinance, standard, and policy requirements which have neither been requested nor specifically approved.

3. A Home Owners Association shall be established and it will be responsible for the landscaping maintenance for all lettered lots, paseo, private basin (Lot C), storm drain leading to the private basin (Phase 1 ), and walls adjacent to the private basin.

4. Prior to approval of any grading/improvement plan, developer shall provide consent for the portion of work which will be completed over the Mojave pipeline.

5. A common use agreement, or another mutually agreed-upon agreement regarding improvements within the Mojave pipeline right of way and City of Bakersfield right of way shall be recorded concurrently with the filing of the final map of the corresponding phase.

6. Prior to grading plan review submit the following for review and approval:

6.1. A drainage study for the entire subdivision, or a revision to the approved study.

The study shall be approved, any required retention shall be provided, and necessary easements shall be dedicated to the City. Lot C retention basin and any storm drain leading to the private basin shall be privately maintained.

6.2. A sewer study to include providing service to the entire subdivision and showing what surrounding areas may be served by the main line extensions.

6.3. If the tract is discharging storm water to a canal, a channel, or the Kern River: In order to meet the requirements of the City of Bakersfield's NPDES .permit, and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or frorn storm events to the waters of the US, all storm water systems that ultimately By CC S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_ VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\VTTM 7471_Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

convey drainage to the river or a canal shall have a mechanical device in the storm drain system to remove or minimize the introduction of oil, grease, trash, and sediments. This device shall be reviewed and approved by the City · Engineer and shall provide the greatest benefit to the storm drain system with the least maintenance cost.

7. The following conditions must be reflected in the design of the improvement plans:

7.1. Final plan check fees shall be submitted with the first plan check submission.

7.2. Per Resolution l 08-2023 the area within the Tract shall implement and comply with the "complete streets" policy. Complete streets will require pedestrian and bicycle access to the Tract from existing sidewalks and bike lanes. If there is a gap less than ¼ mile then construction of asphalt sidewalks and bike lanes to the tract will be required.

7.3. Install traffic signal interconnect conduit and pull rope for the frontage in all arterials and collectors. Install conduit and pull ropes in future traffic signal locations.

7.4. In addition to other paving requirements, on and off-site road improvements may be required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn and right turn channelization into each street (or access point) within the subdivision (or development), where warranted and as directed by the City Engineer. Said channelization shall be developed to provide necessary transitions and deceleration lanes to meet the current CalTrans standards for the design speed of the roadway in question.

7.5. Off-site pavement and striping construction will be required to transition from the proposed/ultimate on-site improvements to the existing conditions at the time construction commences. Transitions must be designed in accordance with City Standards and/or the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. If existing conditions change during the period of time between street improvement plan approval and construction commencement, the street improvement plans must be revised and approved by the City Engineer.

7.6. Right turn deceleration lanes are required on arterials at all streets and access points if the 85th percentile speed is less than 45 mph and the peak hour turning volume is over 200, or if the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph or greater and the peak hour turning volume is over 25.

8. The subdivider shall either construct the equivalent full width landscaped median island in Paladino Dr and Morning Dr for the site's frontage or pay$ 100 per Linear Feet (their proportionate share of the cost for the future construction of the median).

Median islands shall be designed by the first tract or development to be approved on a side.

9. The subdivide is responsible for implementing the following:

9.1. The phasing map as submitted may be unbalanced with respect to the required improvements along the tract frontages. Therefore, in order to promote orderly development, each phase shall be responsible for an equal dollar amount of frontage·improvement. f'>riorto recordation of each final map for any phase that does not construct its share of the improvements, the By CC S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097 _ vrrM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ vrrM 7471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

difference between the cost of the frontage improvements constructed and the phase share shall be placed into an escrow account. The money deposited in this account would be for the use of the developer of any future phase responsible for more than its share of improvements. The final per-lot share will be based upon an approved engineer's estimate. In lieu of the use of an escrow account, the developer may choose to construct with each phase its proportionate share of the frontage improvements, with approval of the City Engineer.
9 .2. The following conditions are based upon the premise that filing of Final Maps will occur in the order shown on the map with Phase 1 first, then Phase 2, then Phase 3, etc. If recordation does not occur in that normal progression, then, prior to recordation of each final map, the City Engineer shall determine the extent of improvements to be done with that particular phase. 9 .2.1 . The following shall occur with Phase 1 :

9.2.1.1. Construct Paladino Drive to full½ width arterial standards from Morning Dr to the western boundary of the tract.

9.2.1.2. Construct Morning Dr to full½ width arterial standards from the northern tract boundary to the phase 1 /2 boundary.
9 .2.2. The following shall occur with Phase 2:
9 .2.2.1 . Construct Morning Dr to full ½ width arterial standards from the phase 1 /2 boundary to the phase 2/3 boundary.

9.2.2.2. Construct Morning Dr to full½ width arterial standards, including asphalt pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk from the phase 2/3 boundary to the southern tract boundary
9 .2.2.3. A temporary turnaround shall be constructed on Enchanted Dr and phase 2/3 boundary.
9 .2.3. The following shall occur with Phase 3:
9 .2.3.1 . Construct the landscaping and wall along Morning Dr from the phase 2/3 boundary to the southern tract boundary.
9 .2.3.2. Construct Eagle Ridge Street.

If the number of phases or the boundaries of the phases are changed, the developer must submit to the City Engineer an exhibit showing the number and configuration of the proposed phases. The City Engineer will review the exhibit and determine the order and extent of improvements to be constructed with each new phase. The improvement plans may require revision to conform to the new conditions.
9 .3. The subdivider is responsible for verifying that existing streets within the boundary of the tract are constructed to city standards and he will reconstruct streets within the boundary if not to standard. 9 .4. Where streets do not have curb and gutter, construct a minimum section of 36 feet wide consisting of 2-12' lanes, 2-4' paved shoulders and 2 additional feet per side of either AC or other dust proof surface.
9 .5. The use of interim, non-standard drainage retention areas shall be in accordance with the drainage policy adopted by letter dated January 24; 1997.

By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _ VTTM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

9.6. To preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events, Best Management Practices for complying with the requirements of the Clean Water Act are required. 9 .7. All lots with sumps and water well facilities will have wall and landscaping to the appropriate street standards, at the building setback with landscaping as approved by the Public Works and Parks Directors.

9.8. Drainage basins shall be reviewed and approved by both the Public Works Department and the Water Resources Department.

9.9. Install blue markers in the street at the fire hydrants per the Fire Department requirements.

10. The following must be reflected in the final map design:

10.1. A waiver of direct access shall be required for all lots abutting any arterials and collectors.

11. Prior to recordation of the first final map within this project site, subdivider shall make written notification to the City Engineer of any public improvements required to be financed or constructed outside the boundaries of the tentative map {i.e., "offsite improvements) as defined in BMC 116.16.080(E), and the cost of such offsite improvements. The notice shall include an engineer's estimate or other documentation as required by the City Engineer that outlines by line item the specific offsite improvements for purposes of verifying extension of time eligibility pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6(a). The written notification and documentation are subject to approval by the City Engineer or his/her designee.

12. Prior to recording the first final map:

12.1. The City Council must have taken final action for the inclusion of this tract within the Consolidated Maintenance District.

12.2. The developer is required to construct an improvement which is on the facilities list for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Morning Dr and Paladino Dr. The developer shall receive credit against his traffic impact fees for constructing this project. The developer must submit an appraisal, to be approved by the City Engineer, verifying the cost of the rightof-way to be acquired. This credit is not available until the improvement has been constructed by the developer and accepted for maintenance by the City. Any building permit issued prior to this acceptance shall pay the full impact fee.

12.3. If it becomes necessary to obtain any off-site right of way and if the subdivider is unable to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the up-front costs for eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security for the purchase and improvement of said right of way.

13. Prior to recording each final map:

13.1. All facilities within the boundaries of this subdivision identified by the approved drainage studyshall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer, and all easements required shall be provided.

By CC S:\0S_Lond Division\24-60000097 _ vrrM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Droft\Temp/ates\ vrrM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

13.2. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map which will prohibit occupancy of any lot until all improvements have been completed by the subdivider and accepted by the City.

13.3. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map containing information with respect to the addition of this subdivision to the consolidated maintenance district. Said covenant shall also contain information pertaining to the maximum anticipated annual cost per single family dwelling for the maintenance of landscaping associated with this tract.

Said covenant shall be provided to each new property owner through escrow proceedings. If the parcel is already within a consolidated maintenance district, the owner shall update the maintenance district documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, which shall be signed and notarized.

13.4. This subdivision is located within the Breckenridge Planned Drainage Area per Resolution 136-05 and is subject to fees. Pay such fees prior to recordation of each Final Map.

13.5. All facilities within the boundaries of this subdivision identified by the approved Breckenridge drainage study shall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer, and all easements required shall be provided.

14. Prior to Notice of Completion:

14.1. The storm drain system, including the sump, shall be inspected and any debris removed.

14.2. Street Name Signs (SNS):

14.2.1. Metro Size SNS shall be installed at the intersection of local streets with Arterial and collector streets.

14.2.2. Standard SNS shall be installed at all other locations.

FIRE SAFETY DIVISION

15. Pipeline Easements.

15.1 Concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show the easements on the final map with a notation that structures including accessory buildings, habitable portion of a structure, garage, deck/patio, swimming pools or unoccupied permanent structure, are prohibited within the setback and record a corresponding covenant.

15.2 Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show on the final map that no habitable portion of a structure, garage, deck/patio, swimming pools or unoccupied permanent structure may be built within 50 feet of a gas main, or transmission line, or refined liquid product line with 36 inches of cover and record a corresponding covenant.

15.3 No structure may be within 40 feet of a hazardous liquids pipeline bearing refined product, within 48 inches or more of cover. If a pipeline meets these criteria, the 40- foot setback line shall be shown in the final map and a corresponding covenant By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that is affected.

15.4 No habitable portion of a structure may be built within thirty (30) feet of a crude oil pipeline operating at twenty percent (20%) or greater of its design strength.

15.5 Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase within 250 feet of the pipeline easements, subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing the location of the pipelines on all lots of this subdivision within 250 feet of the pipelines.

American Petroleum Institute Standards and Guidelines for property development

16. Fire Apparatus Access Roads and Hydrants

16. l When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for protection, is required to be installed, such shall be installed and made serviceable prior to any building permit issuance and throughout the time of construction.

16.2 Dead-End fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table Dl03.4 (California Fire Code)
Table Dl03.4
R equ1rmen tf s or D ea dEdF - n ire A .ooara t us A ccess R oa d s Length Width Turnaround Required
(Feet) (Feet)
0-150 20 None required
120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot "Y" or·96-foot
151-500 20 diameter cul-de-sac
120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot "Y" or 96-foot
501-750 26 diameter cul-de-sac
Over 750 Special Approval Required

16.3 Fire Apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced with the first lift of asphalt to provide all-weather driving capabilities.

RECREATION AND PARKS

17. Prior to recordation of each final map, the subdivider shall pay an in-lieu fee based on a park land dedication requirement of 2.5 acres per l 000 population in accordance with Chapter 15.80 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. If the number of dwelling units increases or decreases upon recordation of a final map(s), the park land requirement will change accordingly. Refer to BMC Chapter 15.80 and the Planning Information Sheet regarding calculation and payment ofin-lieu fee. In accordance with you are hereby By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\0l_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Temp/ates\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest the imposition of this fee has begun.

BMC Chapter 15.80 requires the Planning Commission to determine if a subdivider is to dedicate park land, pay an in-lieu fee, reserve park land or a combination of these in order to satisfy the City's park land ordinance subject to Government Code Section 66020(d). Staff is recommending this condition in accordance with BMC Chapter 15.80.

18. Landscape Lot D (Private Paseo) including all its ancillary paseos to lot D & lot F (Private Park) for Tract 7471 shall be privately maintained by an established HOA or approved CC&R's for the subdivision.

Orderly development.

19. The block wall along Morning Drive at Landscape Lot D (Private Paseo) can have a public access opening, providing there are traffic control bollards installed to prevent vehicular access. Bollards to be reviewed and approved by Public Works and the Recreation and Parks Department during the plan review process. The Homeowners Association (HOA) shall include in their CC&R's that the HOA is responsible to maintain the public access.

Orderly development.

20. Prior to construction, Subdivider shall confirm with the Recreation and Parks Department and Public Works Department for sidewalk and landscape area layout along Paladino Drive and Morning Drive.

Orderly development.

CITY ATTORNEY

21. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY's sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.

The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its By CC S:\05 _Land Division \24-60000097 _ VTTM 7 471 _6220 M oming Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Temp/ates\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.

PLANNING

22. This subdivision shall comply with all provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, and applicable resolutions, policies and standards in effect at the time the application for the subdivision map was deemed complete per Government Code Section 6647 4.2.

23. The subdivision shall be recorded in no more than 4 phases. Phases shall be identified numerically and not alphabetically.

Orderly development.

24. Prior to recordation of each final map, subdivider shall submit a "will serve" or "water availability" letter or other documentation acceptable to the Planning Director from the water purveyor stating the purveyor will provide water service to the phase to be recorded.

Required for orderly development and provide for the public health, welfare and safety by ensuring water service to the subdivision at the time of final map recordation because the water purveyor has included an expiration date in the initial "will serve" letter.

25. Mineral Rights: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the following shall apply:
a. Subdivider shall submit written evidence that waiver(s) of surface entry has been obtained from 100% of the mineral right interest(s) for the entire area of this tract.

Written evidence shall be submitted to the Planning Director in the form of a recorded document such as a grant deed or other instrument approved by the City Attorney. The proposed lots shown underlying the drill site shall be allowed to record subject all other conditions of approval of the tentative map.

Required to verify compliance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A. and orderly development.

26. In the event a previously undocumented well is uncovered or discovered on the project site, the subdivider is responsible to contact the Department of Conservation's Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM). The subdivider is responsible for any remedial operations on the well required by CalGEM. Subdivider shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080 (B.)
Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.

27. Prior to recordation of each final map, the subdivider shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Director that the abc;mdoned well plug been leak tested by an independent, third party, qualified leak testing company and that it shows no sign of By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _ VTTM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

leakage. If there is evidence of leakage, re-abandonment of the well may be required to the satisfaction of Department of Conservation's Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM), confirmation of which the subdivider shall provide to the Planning Director.

Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.

28. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any final map containing abandoned oil well, subdivider shall provide a covenant disclosing the location of abandoned oil wells and the 10-foot non-buildable radii shall be recorded. The covenant shall be submitted to the City Attorney and Planning Director for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map.

Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.

29. Prior to recordation of each final map on any phase, the subdivider shall construct a 6 foot high chain link fence, in accordance with City of Bakersfield Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual Standard D - 12 ( aka S-10) including concrete curb, and approved by the City Engineer adjacent to the tower line easement, as measured from highest adjacent grade, along the common property line. The concrete curb may be waived subject to Planning Director approval. A temporary fencing plan may be approved by the Planning Director to facilitate project phasing. [tower line easement] required to satisfy BMC Section 16.32.060 B.8.a and based on a finding to provide for the public health, safety and welfare.

30. Prior to recordation or concurrently with recordation of each final map, subdivider shall create a Homeowners Association (HOA) and CC&Rs for the subdivision, as approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director to maintain the common areas including the private street and private landscaping. Prior to recordation, subdivider shall submit HOA and CC&Rs to the City for review and approval.

Orderly development.

31. Prior to the recordation of a phase containing the Mojave Pipeline, subdivider shall record a covenant on all lots within 250 feet of the Mojave Pipeline, and shall provide a copy to the City and Planning Director for review and approval prior to recordation.

Orderly development.

32. Prior to the recordation of each final map, subdivider shall record a covenant that the property is in the vicinity or is adjacent to a high voltage transmission towers and shall provide a copy to the City and Planning Director for review and approval prior to recordation.

Orderly development.

By CC S:\0S_Land Division \24-60000097 _ vrTM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ vrTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A'·'
VTTM 7471

33. Subdivider shall be required to comply with clear sight lines per BMC Section 17.08.175 on all corner lots. Prior to recordation of each final map, subdivider shall submit for substantial conformance, a diagram demonstrating the corner lot(s) comply with said section and have an adequate building envelop that meets required setbacks. (Note: if unable to comply, the lot(s) shall be adjusted to comply with clear sight line and other applicable ordinances and be approved by the Planning Director prior to recordation of a final map.)
Required for public safety.

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

34. During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work shall immediately cease, and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Project is subject to any recommendations of the qualified specialist.

35. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99.

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

36. BIO-1: Preconstruction Survey A qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of special-status and other protected wildlife should conduct a preconstruction survey within 14 days or less prior to disturbance (vegetation removal, grading of topsoil, leveling, laydown and materials storage areas, access routes, etc.) and after completion of protocol or other surveys recommended in Measure BIO-8. A Qualified Biologist is defined as a person with a combination of academic qualifications (minimum of 4 years of university or college education in biological sciences, zoology, wildlife biology, ecology, botany, or environmental science), professional field experience conducting biological surveys, and demonstrated knowledge and skills (i.e., field experience) related to the resources potentially present on the proposed site, including species-specific focused or protocol-level surveys to be conducted. The purpose of the preconstruction survey is to confirm the results of protocol surveys and assess the presence of any specialstatus species or resource considered sensitive under CEQA.

The preconstruction biological survey will consist of walking belt transects spaced at no more than 20m ( 65 feet) to accomplish l 00% coverage of the Project site plus a 250-foot buffer, if accessible. During the survey, all direct and indirect observations of special-status biological resources will be noted if encountered and recorded using a handheld GPS on field forms and/or a mapping program (e.g., ArcGIS Field Maps).

By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _ VTTM 7471 _6220 Morning Drive\01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Tempfates\ VTTM 7471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

37. BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) LGI Homes or developer will develop and implement a WEAP for all personnel that may conduct work on Tract 7471. WEAP trainings will be conducted for each individual prior to their first access onto the Project, and annually thereafter. The program may include an informational video, handouts, and other materials, and should consist of a presentation with material given on-site or off-site by trained personnel (e.g., Qualified Biologist or assigned Company Environmental Specialists}. WEAP trainings shall cover an overview of the laws and regulations governing the protection of biological resources; a description of protected (i.e., special status} species and resources known to occur or with the potential to occur in the Kern River Field; their status and legal protections; what is considered habitat and surface disturbance; biological resource avoidance measures; and a list of designated Project contacts. The program will provide general awareness to workers and supply materials to assist workers in recognizing protected biological resources that may occur on the Project, avoidance measures to protect biological resources, and how to report biological resources if observed. Forms verifying worker attendance should be accessible to City, USFWS and CDFW staff. No untrained personnel should be allowed to work onsite during the construction phase of the Project with the exception of delivery trucks that are only onsite for 1 day or less and are under the supervision of a trained employee.

38. BIO-3: Biological Monitoring. A Qualified Biologist shall be present during initial surface disturbance for project locations where sensitive species have been observed or have the potential to occur based on pre-disturbance and/or focused/protocol biological survey results.

39. BIO-4: Nesting Bird Season. Nesting Bird Season. If initial ground disturbance occurs during nesting season (February 1 to September 15} a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey to identify any active nests present within the proposed work area. If active nests are found, initial ground disturbance shall be postponed or halted within no disturbance buffers, as shown in Table 4.1. If the no disturbance buffers in Table 4.1 are not feasible, nests will be monitored by a qualified avian biologist who will establish a behavior baseline prior to activities. The qualified avian biologist will establish an avoidance buffer and continuously monitor during project activities, watching for behavioral changes. If any indication of nesting disturbance is observed, the avoidance buffer will be increased until the avian biologist determines that nesting behavior has returned to baseline. Nest monitoring will continue until juveniles have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. Monitoring will be documented on standardized field forms and provided to the City of Bakersfield for verification of compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and applicable section of Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5 and 3513). CDFW may be contacted for guidance regarding alternative avoidance strategies.

40. BIO-5: California legless lizard, California glossy snake,.and San Joaquin coacbwhip. Jf any of these species are identified during initial ground disturbance monitored by the By CC S:\0S_Land Division \24-60000097 _ VJTM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VJTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

qualified biologist, they shall be allowed to leave of their own accord. If they do not leave, they may be moved by a qualified biologist to nearby suitable habitat, out of harm's way.

41. BI0-6: Unidentified Special Status Species If any previously unidentified protected species that is not addressed in this document or any previously unreported protected species are found to be present, occupied areas shall be avoided by a buffer determined by a Qualified Biologist and the City of Bakersfield shall be notified. Any take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to USFWS and CDFW.

42. BI0-7: Best Management Practices The following best management practices (BMP) shall be implemented on the Tract 7 471 Project to minimize impacts to resident wildlife in areas adjacent to the Project:

1. During construction, all vehicles will observe a 15 mile-per-hour speed limit unless otherwise posted. Off-road traffic outside designated access routes shall be prohibited. Speed limit signs will be posted at visible locations at regular intervals on all access roads.

2. Construction activities shall occur during daylight hours to the extent feasible.

Initial ground disturbance shall be strictly limited to daylight hours. Nighttime activity shall use shielding or directed lighting to minimize light impacts on adjacent habitat.

3. All food-related trash items and microtrash, such as wrappers, cans, bottles, bottle tops, and food scraps shall be disposed of in closed containers and routinely removed from Project, at intervals of no less than once per week.

4. Herbicide application shall be in accordance with existing laws and manufacturers' instructions (i.e., pesticide/herbicide labels). All herbicide chemicals used must be registered for use in the U.S. and California and must have a label certifying that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) have approved the herbicide for use. Herbicides will not be sprayed within 50 feet of any known California- listed plant occurrence or federal land. No rodenticides shall be used on any project.

5. All open trenches, excavations, and/or holes more than 2 feet deep shall be backfilled or covered at the end of each workday to prevent wildlife entrapment. If an excavation or hole is too large to cover, escape ramps shall be installed at an incline ratio of no greater than 1 :1 for every 500 feet. All trenches and excavations shall be inspected for the presence of wildlife each day prior to the start of work. Before such holes or trenches are filled, workers shall thoroughly inspect excavations and trenches for trapped animals.

By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _ VITM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VITM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

6. All exposed pipes, culverts, and other similar structures with a diameter 3 inches or greater shall be properly capped in order to prevent entry by San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife. Any of these materials or structures that are left overnight and are not capped shall be inspected prior to being moved, buried, or closed in order to ensure that San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife are not present. If a listed species is found within pipe, culverts or similar structures, the animal will be allowed to escape that section of its own accord prior to moving or utilizing that segment. All bent pipe with a diameter of 3-inches or greater that cannot be visually inspected for wildlife with 100 percent certainty shall be left in place and monitored by a Qualified Biologist using wildlife cameras and/or tracking material prior to being capped, moved, or buried. If any wildlife is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the animal vacates the pipe on its own accord.

7. All vertical tubes used in project construction and chain link fencing poles shall be capped to avoid entrapment and death of special-status wildlife and birds.

8. Discovery of State or federally listed species that are injured or dead shall be reported immediately via telephone and within 24 hours in writing to CDFW and/or USFWS Office as applicable.

9. All construction equipment and construction personnel vehicles shall be checked underneath prior to moving, to ensure that no wildlife is under equipment/vehicles. If any individuals are detected beneath equipment or vehicles, the equipment or vehicles will be left in place until the wildlife moves out of harm's way on its own accord.
1 O. All washing of trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities including concrete washout shall occur in designated areas/facilities where runoff is fully contained for collection prior to off-site disposal. Wash water may not be discharged from the Project, must be stored in a manner that_excludes specialstatus wildlife species, and be located at least 100 feet from any water of the State.

11. To prevent harassment of special-status species, construction personnel shall not be allowed to have firearms or pets on the Project.

12. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles and food scraps generated by Project activities shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once each week from the site. Deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be prohibited.

13. All liquids shall be in closed, covered containers. Any spills of hazardous liquids shall be promptly addressed and not be left unattended until clean-up has been completed.

By CC S:\05 _Land Division \24-60000097 _ VTTM 7 471 _6220 M oming Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

14. Any employee who inadvertently kills or injures a listed species, or who finds any such wildlife dead, injured, or entrapped, shall be required to report the incident immediately to a designated site representative (e.g., foreman, project manager, environmental inspector, etc.), except animals killed on state and county roads when such mortality is not associated with Project traffic.

15. In the case of entrapped wildlife that are listed species, contact of a Qualified Biologist and escape ramps or structures shall be installed immediately, if possible, to allow the subject wildlife to escape unimpeded.

16. In the case of injured special-status wildlife, the CDFW shall be notified immediately. During business hours Monday through Friday, the phone number is (559) 243-4017. For non-business hours, report to (800) 952-5400. Notification shall include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident.

Instructions provided by the CDFW for the care of the injured animal shall be followed by the contractor onsite.

17. In the case of dead wildlife that are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS and the CDFW shall be immediately (within 24 hours) notified by phone or in person and shall document the initial notification in writing within 2 working days of the findings of any such wildlife. Notification shall include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident.

18. Prior to commencement of construction on any phase of work, work areas shall be clearly marked with fencing, stakes with rope or cord, or other means of delineating the work area boundaries.

43. 810-8: Prior to surface disturbance or site alteration (vegetation removal, grading of topsoil, leveling, materials storage on site, etc.) on the Tract 7 471 Project, the following focused surveys with accompanying survey buffers shall be conducted. If any of these resources are observed, recommended avoidance buffers are shown in Table 4-1. If 100% avoidance is not likely, CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for appropriate notification, permitting, and guidance. If federal and/or state authorizations are required to complete species specific surveys, Qualified Biologists will be required to have appropriate USFWS/CDFW authorizations prior to conducting those surveys.

State and Federal Listed and Candidate Species
• Crotch's Bumble Bee (agency protocol): Unless otherwise approved by CDFW, a survey of bumble bees following the methods contained in California Department of Fish and Wildlife Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (June 6, 2023) shall be conducted during the bumble bee colony active period .(April-Aug.ust) prior.to surface disturbance.

If bumble bees are captured for identification, that activity will be conducted by By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _ vrrM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Temptates\ vrrM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

a person holding a California Scientific Collecting Permit and Memorandum of Understanding to handle any candidate or listed species that could be captured.

Survey buffer: 250 feet.
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (agency protocol): Unless otherwise approved by USFWS, a survey following USFWS 2017 Revised Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods shall be conducted in the season prior to construction. • Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (agency protocol): The CDFW Approved Survey Methodology for the Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard (October 2019) or updated protocol(s) shall be implemented to determine whether this species is present.

Surveys are valid for 1 year from the date of completion. Recommended survey buffer: 250 feet.
• San Joaquin kit fox* (agency protocol): Prior to surface disturbance, a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify burrows/dens/structures potentially occupied by San Joaquin kit fox following the definitions and timing recommended in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011). Recommended survey buffer during natal season (January 1-August 31): 500 feet; recommended survey buffer outside of natal season (September 1-December 31); 250 feet.
* A specific note on SJKF: SJKF have shown survival success and persistence is some urban areas of Bakersfield where features suitable for SJKF denning and foraging are found. Implementation of SJKF compatible features in Project design, such as artificial dens, or travel/escape access holes into fenced areas that could be used as denning or foraging areas applied to applicable areas of the Project such as retention basins, fenced utilities stations, or community parks, is highly encouraged.

Voluntary proactive coexistence measures and features for supporting SJKF recovery, implemented with the help of a Qualified Biologist and Agency input, is strongly encouraged to reduce cumulative impacts to SJKF.
• Burrowing owl ( agency protocol): In the survey season prior to commencement of construction, surveys described in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) (Staff Report) should be implemented. Should a burrowing owl or known burrowing owl den (active or inactive) be detected, either during preconstruction surveys or construction activities, no-disturbance buffers outlined in the Staff Report and included in Table 4.1 shall be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities.

44. B1O-9: If any state or federal listed species other than blunt-nosed leopard lizard are found to occupy the Project during any of the recommended surveys above or take of any of these species may occur (e.g;, San Joaquin kitfox known or natal den is present), CDFW and/or USFWS (depending on listing status) shall be contacted By CC S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097 _ VTTM 7471 _6220 Morning Drive\01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

regarding whether incidental take authorization is required from each agency.

Incidental take authorization shall include additional minimization measures, such as passive relocation, avoiding natal periods, and habitat compensation for the temporary or permanent loss of the subject habitat.

45. BIO-1 0: If blunt-nosed leopard lizard is found to occupy the Project, in addition to contacting the USFWS regarding federal status per BIO-9, a qualified biologist shall prepare a blunt-nosed leopard lizard avoidance plan for submittal to CDFW that identifies measures to be implemented to avoid take as required under this species' fully protected status, unless incidental take authorization is subsequently issued prior to construction.

46. BIO-11: American Badger
• American badger (no agency protocol): During the preconstruction survey, a qualified biologist shall determine whether American badger dens are present.

American badger burrows shall be monitored following methods for San Joaquin kit fox dens. American badger natal dens shall be avoided by a buffer of 500 feet unless otherwise specified by CDFW until the young are no longer dependent on the adults. If American badger dens remain active after the recommended monitoring period, den use may be discouraged by partially blocking the entrance to the den or using passive relocation techniques specified by CDFW.

Recommended survey buffer: 250 feet.

Table 4.1. Protected Biological Resources - Recommended Avoidance Buffers Crotch's bumble bee nest 50 feet or implement CDFW
recommended buffer
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard observation Work may not proceed until BIO-9 and BIO-10 have been completed
Swainson's hawk active nest (March 15-September 15) ¼-mile Swainson's hawk documented nest tree (outside of nesting season) 50 feet San Joaquin kit fox potential den or suitable pipe 50 feet San Joaquin kit fox known den 100 feet
San Joaquin kit fox atypical den 50 feet
San Joaquin kit fox natal den 500 feet
San Joaquin kit fox natal den (unoccupied/outside of natal season) 100 feet Burrowing owl active or inactive burrow (high impact level) April 1-August 15: 1,640 feet August 16-October 15: 1,640 feet
October 16~March 31: 1,640 feet
By CC S:\0S_Lond Division\24-60000097 _ VTTM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _j-/earing & Noticing Documents\Droft\Templotes\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updoted.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

Special-status Resource
Non-listed nesting birds (non-raptors)
Non-listed raptors
Listed/protected raptors
American badger occupied natal den
American badger occupied den
Avoidance Buffer*
250 feet
500 feet
½-mile
200 feet
50 feet
*Unless incidental take authority authorizes encroachment or appropriate agency concurrence for a reduced buffer is received.

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

47. SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures
As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJV APCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIII measures are as follows:
► Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity.
► Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20%opacity. ► Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. ► Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJV APCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or moreaxles . ► Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover.
► Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking .
► When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions.

By CC S:\OS_La nd Division\24-60000097 _VTTM 7471 _6220 Morn ing Drive\0 /_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

► Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expresslyforbidden).
► Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants. ► Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. ► Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period) .

48. Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:
► Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. ► Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. ► Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.
► Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.
► All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper em1ss1ons control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions.
► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines.
► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines. ► All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks. ► All construction activities within the project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts.
► Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage 03 alerts.

First stage 03 alerts are declared when the 03 level exceeds 0.20 ppm ( 1-hour average).

By CC S:\0S_Land Division \24-60000097 _ V1TM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ V1TM 7471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

49. Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for longterm emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:
► The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. ► Applicants shall be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures in the AQAP, SJVAPCD Rules, Traffic Control Measures, Regulation VIII and Indirect Source Rules for the SJV APCD.
► The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 -Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. ► The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJV APCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area. Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of:
• Rapid cure cutback asphalt;
• Medium cure cutback asphalt;
• Slow cure cutback asphalt ( as specified in SJV APCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt ( as specified in SJV APCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). • The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJV APCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

Traffic/Circulation Impact Mitigation Measures

50. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall pay the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program.

51. Prior to issuance of building permits and if necessary as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant/developer shall obtain a street permit or get approved a Traffic Control Plan from the City Public Works Department.

Added by the Planning Commission on 5/1 /25

52. Subdivider shall follow the Valley Fever Guidelines from the Kern County Public Health Dept.

This condition added by the Planning Commission on 5/1/25 to document applicant's agreement to follow the Kern Co Health Dept. Valley Fever Guidelines.

By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _ VTTM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7471

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
A R-1
VTTM 7471
R-1
R-2
R-1
R-1 R-1
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1 R-1
R-1 R-3
Dr Juliet Thorner
El,mentary lchool
C-1
"" Q
t!)
=!::
=
c::, ""
R-1 R-1
R-1 R-1
:::;;i---------------------1
R-1 R-1
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1
C-1
Zoning
R-1 One Family Dwelling 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R•l-4.S One Family Dwelling
4,SOO sq.ft. min lot size
E Estate
10,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R-S Residential Suburban
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit
R-S-( ) Residential Suburban
1, 2.S, Sor 10 min lot size
R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling
4,SOO sq.ft. min lot size (single family)
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily)
2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot siie
600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-H Residential Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
A-20A Agriculture
20 acre min lot size
A-WR Agriculture-Water Recharge
Combining
PUD Planned Unit Development
TT Travel Trailer Park
MH Mobilehome C-0 Professional & Administrative Office
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Regional Commercial C-C Commercial Center
C-B Central Business
PCD Planned Commercial Development
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
P Automobile Parking
RE Recreation
Ch Church Overlay
OS Open Space
HOSP Hospital Overlay
AD Anhite<tural Design Overlay
FP,P Floodplain Primary
FP-S Floodplain Secondary
AA Airport Approach
DI Drilling Island
PE Petroleum Extraction Combining
SC Senior Citiren Overlay
HD Hill5ide Development Combining
WM West Ming Specific Plan
Exhibit B
0 BAKERSFIELD
0 t
Feet
500
3/24/2025
1,000
Exhibit C
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 7471
crry OF BAKEASFIELO, CALIFORNIA
OJYNER/SmmMDgR
LOI HOll£S - ~ Ll.C 2251 OOUQAS BLKI .. S/Jlrt I 10 ROSEKLLE. GI 1$661 (714) 920--2478 lll!lmlmB.

JASON E. VAN CVREN 200 NEW snNf: Rl'.. $Ul1F Ir.I 84A'ERSRE1D. C4 9XJ09 (tStll)JJB-0911

GJNIRALNQTES
I. 1HJS IS A PHASED DEl,£l.OAIIENr.

EIIGll!l!D.

SAN JOAOUIN ENGINCERtN(l. INC. 200 NEW STINE RO., ~ I~ BAKERSF1S..D. CA IJJD9 (Bll}»B-D!/77

2. MIPROVEIIENl'S.DRAW4GeANOOED/CA110NSn,BE.fN
ACCONJANCe wml CITY OF BAKE1fSFIEUJ SUIJOlt/lSION STANDARDS.

J. 1HE 1RACr SH4U. R1UOW 111£ 'tOMPLm' STREET" PfJUf:f PER RESOLU110N IOll-zoD I. ASSaSOR~ PARCEL ~ 4J7-0I0-43-00-2

2. ~1E' ACROIGe PH4S£ I JI.OS ACR£5 PHASE2 .J4..;J4A~
PH4SE'J 18.SIACR!S
10TAL BJ.91 ACRES
J. APPtl'OX1.W47E' tJNfAL FOOTAGE OP S11f£aS: tr,910 LF

4.NUMBEROPBUII.DABtEI.OTS:PHASCI ll4LOrs PHASE 2 154 LOTS ~J §LOTS lOTAL J6J LOTS

5. NIJIIBfROFNON--Bflll.lMffiELOTS: 5
• I
I
I 101iilL1.l tJlrS

6. NMJEW: C.UR'JRNM WAR:n' SERVICE COUPAM'

7. S!.'WER:Cll'YOFBAKERSFIEI.D
IANIJSCAP< "'3JN
--
PARKS
& .,_ DRAINAGE: IN CONRJRMANCE wml Cl1"f OF B4NERSFIELD SUBDlvtSION

9. ~ PACIFIC C4S AND ElEC1RIC

10. G4S: PACIFIC CAS AND ELEtTRIC
II, 1E1.EPHONe: AT~T

12. EXISTING tAND USE: M4CANT
I.J. PROPOSED lANO ~ SINCI.E FMtlt.Y RESIDEN11AL

14. FIREll'R01a:110N: IN CONRJRf,IANC£ wm, CJ1YOFBAHERSREU1 SIIBOMSION srANDARDS

15. EXISTING .t PROPOSED ZONINC: R-1
,ti. GD4'1Mt. Pl.AN ~JDR: I.R
I 1. SCHOOL DIS1RIC1S HICH SCHOCX.• HIGHlAND HIGH SCHOOi. JIJN10RHKiHSCHOOL: CHJPIMNJllHIORHICHSCHOOI. £LEJIENfAR'f SCHOOL: fHORNER £IEMEN1'AR'f SCHOOL Ill. I.OT DENStm PHASE f .167 BIJILDABL£ l.01S PER ACRE PHASE 2 4.'411 BIHWCBLE' L01S PER ACRE PHASE' J 5.1 I BIJII.DABL£ um; PER ACRE TQTAt. 4.J2 BUILQA.EILE' L01S PER ACRE
19, FEM4 R.000 MAP: ZONE X FIRM PANEL 0602,CIHIE
~
( ) • lrDI NUMBER PER Tl1I.E RtPORT NO. NHSC-5092fflJ B'f RRST MIER/CW 11nE COUPANY 041ED JANUAfrt I I, 2024
(4) 1D THE Ql'Y OF 9AKERSF1ELD: AN OFFER OF oa,/CA11QN
R]R 1NGREZi6, ~ ANO RCMD AND INCIDENTAL PIJRPOSE'S, RE'trJRDED JANIJNf'f 02, IS!tl AS INSTRIJIIEHT NO. Bl-241. 81(, $8JI, PG. 602, O.R.
(5)
DOCIAIENT R£-Ra:ORD!D OCrDBER 2B. 19V AS INS11MIENT NO. 9J-1$n,O IN 900K 69.J2. PAGE 1105, OR.
(BJ IN FAVOR OF THE arr OF ~ AN CASEU£NT FDR PIJ8UC
JANIJARY smaT' 2, 2004-AND AS INCfDEHTAL INS1RIJl,l£NT PURPOSES. NO. 04-t ~ I«, O.R. (I) ~JW,!k,Pft#.":8 ~A,,ffr::1A~ SERVICING ANO 1NC«NTAL PURPOSES. REtOROED N04IEJll1ER 16, 200$ AS IN5rmJUBfT NO. 05-J1"8Z, Q.R, (ID) E'ASEMENT F'OR aamffCAL TRANSIIISSION UNE PURPOSts IN FAl-t.lR OF soun£RN CAI.JFDRNIA EDISON COMPANY Rs:oROED &MY 24. 1950, BK, 16B9, PG, 259, o.R. (It) E"ASEMENT Frm ~ 1RANSIIISSION LJNc PURPOSES IN FAKIR OF SOll1HERN CAJ.JFORNIA EDISON COMPANY REr:aRDE1' AMY tP, 1926, Bl(, tn_ PC. 414, O.R. mlB....lll!1'.I

1. PRIOR100RCONCIJRROITtYll'/1HRECORll4110N
OF ANY PHASE 1H4T INCLJJDES TH£ PIPElJNE CASalEN1S OR PDFf1IONS 1HOEOF. SVBDMOER SH4LL SHOW ON R1W. AMP 1H4T NO HABfTABtE .Z. ~ ~ AMW-111/S ACCESS R04DS IN D'CE5S OF ISO FEET BUWEEN PHAS£ IJNES S'H4U. ~PRtMDEtl Wl1H WID1HANO (1FJIPORARr/P£JIMAND/1)711RtWlO/J11/J
JO' 4~ A LOCAL STREET ~ STREET SECTION· LOCAL NOTTO SCALE j/
:ii
~
:0
g

PROJECT

LOCATION

PANORAMA DRIVE
a AUBURN ST
HIGHWAY 178

YINQINTY MAP

PALADINO DRIVE
6' BLOCK WALL
6' BLOCK WALL
C
41' 1t1 S't
48'1064'
MORNING ·~ DRIVE & PALADINO DRIVE 110' STREET SECTION. ARTERIAL NOTTO SCALE LOT D - PRIVATE PASEO LANDSCAPE LOT SHALL BE LANDSCAPED WITH GRASS, PLANTS AND MEANDERING SIDEWALK. NOTTO SCALE PRIVATE PASEO TYPICAL SECTION LANDSCAPE LOT SHALL BE LANDSCAPED Willi GRASS. PLANTS AND MEANDERING SIDEWALK, N01'TOSCALE
·~ MOJAVE PIPELINE CROSSING ON MORNING DRIVE 110' STREET SECTION-ARTERIAL NOTTO SCALE F PRIVATE PASEO TYPICAL SECTION LANDSCAPE LOT SHALL B6 LANDSCAPED WITH GRASS, PLANTS AND MEANDERING SIDEWALK.

NOTTO SCALE
~ S]E
N,T.S,
Exhibit C
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 7471

ALTERNATE STREET NAMES

1. AIAWl.OWBi' DRIVE.
,2. DRE'AM CATCHER COURT
J. 'BRH:Hi STAR cotJRi

4. MORNING SIJN DRIVE

5. RAO/ANT COURT

6. MERRY WAY

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA

VACANT LAND
l&GEt!l2
PROPOS£O ORAJNAGe FLOW (D.Zr IIIN.

SLIJPQ
~ =CRQUND CONTOURS (2 FT.
■
•
PROP. C47tff BASIN
PROPOSED WAM1I' OF VEHICUtAR Acca5'
EXISTING POWER POlE (PP)
~ EXISTING ~ OF PAm.lENT
+
Otls»NC AtMflOIJNt:D MU. (OAl'E' lffl.L 1114$
PW<l<IEO)
EXIS11NGRRE:"""""'
CONSTRUCT TRAFF1C CAUIJNr1 S11lEEr SEr:nONS PER c.a.s. sn,. sr-,s

PROPOSED BLOCK IVALL
APN: 436-062-JO R-1 ZONING
GENERAL PlAN D£SIGNATION: LR
R-1 ZONING
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR
EIINCClllllllllS0:.1:$.'UIIU&
MCISEC.11,Tlll.lUIS.--RUl!rll',
'1/11CLS.m1'81TIIJCTNILSD
:fi:"111/Slll:IIIICMl'AK:4,\NIHI'
• r,:1
1i!I 0 5
111 ~ ii
1 •6 .J "I ID! A I- i~ ,,., z 'i~ ( .... 0 ~
~ ~
I
11 1
I i •
0 - JI I ! l! I I

1.1 S]E
sCALE: f<:0"'100•-
0 " 100 200

Page | 1

MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Council Meeting of August 13, 2025
Agenda Item 9.a – Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Appeal) Staff is recommending this item be continued to the Council’s regular meeting of September 10, 2025.

The continuance is to provide a proper description of the project, including the environmental document proposed on the agenda.

This memorandum also transmits additional correspondence that was submitted subsequent to preparation of the Administrative Report for tonight’s meeting. On August 8, 2025, the Sierra Club submitted a letter. On August 13, 2025, Lozeau Drury LLP submitted correspondence. Both letters are attached.

Attachments
Letter from Sierra Club
Letter from Lozeau Drury LLP
1 P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
August 8, 2025

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Attention: Courtney Camps
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471
Dear Planners:

As additional input for the August 13 Appeal hearing before the Bakersfield City Council, the Sierra Club offers comments about the above project intended to supplement earlier letters on this project.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In the Cumulative Impact Section 5.2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) Update EIR, it is stated, “MBHCP and implementing agreements and ordinances provide a method of collecting funds for the acquisition and enhancement of habitat lands for purposes of creating preserves. Development projects within the Planning area and County would pay mitigation fees that would be used to buy habitat lands.” Thus the 2002 MBGP depends upon the now-expired Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) for its biological resource cumulative insignificance conclusion. Now that the MBHCP is no longer in effect, the City can no longer rely on the MBGP and must therefore conduct its own analysis of project impacts on protected species and find alternatives or another way to effectively mitigate significant loss of protected species habitat.
2 From the August 2024 Biological Resource Evaluation for this Tract 7471:
• “The cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss of the Bakersfield area should be immediately evaluated for potential significant longterm effects that may consequently have substantial impacts to special status species.”
• “Habitat loss and fragmentation can have cumulatively negative effect on biodiversity and special status species (Johnson and Klemens 2005). As Bakersfield urban development continues to sprawl, and the surrounding habitat is permanently altered, species that once occurred in the area are increasingly becoming extirpated (CNDDB 2024).”
• “This report does not include a cumulative impact analysis from general successive urban Bakersfield development, habitat fragmentation, or corridor disruption. Cumulative impacts to biological resources from this Project and other projects in the vicinity would be potentially significant.” The MND is defective and violates CEQA in that it has not described and assessed the significance of the “cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss” on protected species. Loss of habitat is a major reason for species decline. Moreover, now that the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is no longer in effect, the City must find another way to effectively address the Project’s contribution to cumulative habitat loss. “Potentially significant” cumulative impacts to biological resources and viable mitigation measures for these impacts (including purchase of replacement habitat) should be studied in a full EIR. Moreover, the EIR must evaluate potentially feasible alternative locations that could avoid or minimize the Project’s impacts on rare and protected species and their habitat.

AIR POLLUTION
Regarding the January 29, 2025, Trinity Consultants’ letter responding to Sierra Club comments on the cumulative air pollution impact of the Tract 7471 project:
• Trinity incorporates by reference the old (but currently in effect) 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) Update Program Environmental Impact Report. In the Cumulative Impact Section 5.2 of this MBGP EIR, it is stated, “However, even with mitigation, air quality impacts would remain cumulatively significant. Development under the General Plan Update would create unavoidable significant impacts related to construction, mobile sources and stationary sources, and inconsistency with the AQAP” (emphasis added).

The cumulative air quality insignificance conclusion for this project must be reevaluated in the light of the MBGP significance conclusion. 3 • The Trinity letter states, “To provide an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts, a list approach is used …”, and “A cumulative project list was incorporated by reference above from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report.” Trinity is in error. No such cumulative project list appears in the old 2002 MBGP EIR. Even if there were such a list from 2002, it would be completely stale, inaccurate and unreliable because it would not take account of the incredible growth in NE Bakersfield since then, growth that must be factored into any cumulative impact analysis. To rely on any project list that may have been evaluated by the MBGP EIR for this MND, the City must make a finding that the MBGP EIR’s Project list is adequate for present purposes. (Pub. Res. Code § 21155.2.) The MND and Trinity letter completely ignore this requirement and instead merely assume the list of projects (which Sierra Club maintains does not exist) is reliable for the purpose of analyzing the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts. • The AQIA for this project relies heavily on Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports. If the City is serious about using a “list approach” as above, for the assessment of localized cumulative air quality impacts, Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports require that the assessment “shall include” a list of projects located within a one-mile and six-mile radius of the Project boundaries. There are many such projects, some of which were referenced in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter on this project.

The MND is defective in that it has not included such a list as well as an assessment of the cumulative air pollution impacts of the projects on such a list. • The City continues to illogically assert that project-specific insignificance implies cumulative insignificance, violating the very meaning of cumulative impacts and counter to the SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts as noted in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter on this project.

To help address the cumulative impact of Tract 7471 on air quality, the City should place a requirement that the developer reduce project emissions to zero by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the SJVAPCD.

CLIMATE CHANGE
In spite of the scientific consensus, the MND seems to have a bias against accepting the reality and seriousness of the climate crisis.
• In an apparent attempt to declare that the State has overreached its authority, the AQIA considers SB 32 and SB 100 to be “drastic”. On page 4-10, the AQIA declares, “Senate Bill 32 (Lara, 2016) requires that GHG emissions be 40 4 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100 (de Leon, 2018) which was signed by the Governor recently requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045 (emphasis added).”
• On page 4-10, the AQIA states, “Clearly, the 2008 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State (emphasis added).” The “grand vision” seems to be State law which an objective MND would follow without being judgmental.
• On page 4-10, the AQIA mysteriously concludes that project GHG emissions should not be evaluated because of economic considerations: “Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project level.” The AQIA is deficient in that it does not present substantial evidence for this conclusion. • On page 4-11, the AQIA inappropriately jumps a huge logical gap and ignores scientific evidence to conclude that the project’s cumulative impact to climate change is insignificant. “In summary, this approach takes into account the cumulative nature of the energy industry and recognizes that consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.” The City must present substantial evidence that energy industry regulation implies that other projects like this one need not address climate change. Moreover, the MND must discuss the extent to which the proposed federal rules that relax the regulations that apply to gas and coalfired power plants may result in higher emission of GHGs which in turn could affect California’s ability to meet its GHG reduction targets. • Moreover, the MND must analyze the potential impacts of President Trump and Congress’s actions to block California’s mandates to phase out gas-powered cars and clean up diesel trucks. Although California has filed a lawsuit to challenge these actions, the federal action to block California’s ability to set emission standards could seriously undermine of the State’s main tools achieve significant GHG reductions. (See,
https://calmatters.org/environment/2025/06/california-sues-trump-blocking-cleanair-rules-cars/). • On the next page, the AQIA contradicts itself and grudgingly admits that the project’s cumulative impact to climate change “may be considered” significant.

On page 4-12, the AQIA states, “Given the position of the legislature in AB32 which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the Project’s CO2 contribution may be considered cumulatively considerable. This determination is 5 “speculative,” given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the SJVAB.” CEQA does not contain a “may be considered” option for a project’s impacts; this is an attempt to cast doubt on the urgency and importance of the climate crisis and to perhaps minimize mitigation for the impact. These statements must be revised to unequivocally declare that the Project’s cumulative climate impacts will be significant and then consider appropriate mitigation measures and alternatives. See the citations in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter for clear scientific evidence that this project’s contribution to global climate change is cumulatively significant.
• Nevertheless, the MND is willing to speculatively conclude that the project’s cumulative GHG emissions are not cumulatively considerable. The City must clarify these contradictory statements.

Conclusions based on unacceptable bias must be approached with skepticism. The City must require a full EIR that reflects scientific objectivity and impartiality.

Regarding the January 29, 2025, Trinity Consultants’ letter responding to Sierra Club comments on the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impact of the Tract 7471 project:
• The Trinity letter states, “the effect of the proposed Project’s GHG contribution may be determined to be cumulatively considerable. This determination is speculative, given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the proposed Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.” Nevertheless, the MND is willing to speculatively conclude that the project’s cumulative GHG emissions are not cumulatively considerable. The City must clarify these contradictory statements. • In the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter, the Sierra Club presented overwhelming “clear scientific evidence” that this project’s release of GHG emissions to the atmosphere is inherently cumulatively significant. In spite of Trinity’s assertion, conclusions of the IPCC, for example, are based on solid science and are not speculative.
• The response did not address the lack of a cumulative projects list. There are many such projects, some of which were referenced in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter on this project. The MND is deficient in not having considered a cumulative list of area projects as well as an assessment of the cumulative climate change impacts of the projects on such a list.
• SB 32 requires that statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The MND is deficient in not having addressed this requirement. The response indicates that the project is aligned with “2022 AB 32 6 Climate Change Scoping Plan”. Since the City has not required any of the measures in the 2022 Scoping Plan, this “alignment” seems mysterious. We have listed four such 2022 Scoping Plan measures in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter on this project. If the City is serious about aligning with the 2022 Scoping Plan, the environmental documents must evaluate these and other potential mitigation measures in order to require sufficient mitigation to substantially reduce the cumulative impact of the project on the climate crisis.

Moreover, the MND must include a serious analysis of whether California would be able to attain its long-term GHG reduction targets in light of federal action to block California’s ability to phase out gas-powered cars and require clean and more efficient diesel trucks.

Please place the Sierra Club on the distribution list for this project to receive any noticing of meetings, hearings, availability of documents, and to receive the environmental documents. We prefer email communications and electronic formatting of documents. Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp, Ph.D.

Vice-Chair
[email protected]
661-872-2432
August 12, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Manpreet Kaur, Vice Mayor
Eric Areas, Councilmember
Andrae Gonzales, Councilmember
Ken Weir, Councilmember
Bob Smith, Councilmember
Larry Koman, Councilmember
Zack Bashirtash, Councilmember
Bakersfield City Council
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Julie Drimakis, CMC, CPMC
Bakersfield City Clerk
First Floor
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 and Mitigated Negative Declaration; August 13, 2025 City Council Agenda Item 9.a Dear Vice Mayor Kaur and Honorable City Council Members:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and working in and around Bakersfield regarding Vesting Tentative Tract Map (“VTT”) 7471 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for VTT 7471 (collectively, “Project”). On May 9, 2025 the Sierra Club appealed the May 1, 2025 Bakersfield Planning Commission’s approval of VTT 7471 and MND because the MND violated CEQA (the “Appeal”). SAFER fully supports the Sierra Club’s Appeal of the Project and MND. The Appeal is scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 9.a at the City Council’s August 13, 2025 meeting.

SAFER has reviewed the MND, the Appeal, and the written comments submitted by others in opposition to the Project and inadequacies of the MND including comments by the Sierra Club and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Opposition Comments”).

SAFER agrees with and joins in the analysis and conclusions of the Opposition Comments.

In particular, SAFER requests that the City ensure that climate change impacts and impacts to special status species and habitats are adequately disclose, analyzed, and mitigated.

SAFER respectfully requests the City Council grant the Sierra Club’s Appeal and refrain from approving the Project and MND at this time. Instead, SAFER requests the City Council direct staff to prepare a revised MND or an environmental impact report for the August 12, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 and MND

Project to ensure all impacts are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Approval of the MND at the August 13, 2025 City Council Meeting Would Violate the Brown Act
The Brown Act requires the legislative body of any city, county, or other local agency to meet and conduct its business in public. (Gov. Code sec. 54953(a). The agency must post an agenda 72 hours before any regular meeting. (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2(a)(1).) The agenda must contain “a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting.” (Id.)
Agenda Item 9.a of the City Council’s August 13, 2025 agenda states:

Public Hearing to consider a resolution for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased)
San Joaquin Engineering, Inc., representing LGI Homes – California, LLC., is proposing to subdivide 83.97 acres into single-family residential lots and various private and public lots for streets, landscaping, and other ancillary uses in the R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) zone located at the southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, submitted an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the request. (Ward 3)
City staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471.

Agenda Item 9.a makes no mention of the City Council considering approval or an appeal regarding a mitigated negative declaration for the Project. Accordingly, acting to approve or adopt the MND would violate the Brown Act. Any action by the City Council regarding the MND must be taken at a future meeting, following legally adequate notice under the Brown Act.

Moreover, since CEQA review must occur prior to project approval, approval of the Project before adopting the MND would violate CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code §21091(f); CEQA Guidelines §15074(d); Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1199.)
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP

Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 7471 (Phased)
S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 2 5
SW corner Paladino Dr and
Morning Dr
Location
VTTM 7471
R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling)
Zone Classification
VTTM 7471
LR (Low-Density
Residential)
Land Use Designation
VTTM 7471
Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 7471
Site Plan
VTTM 7471
Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 7471
Site Plan
VTTM 7471
END
S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 2025